NationStates

The change in GCR influence occured slowly over a six month period. It was not fully implimented for the OFO in Osiris. It wasn't fully implemented at that time, so was not fully realized.

But that six month period has now passed. Unless I am mistaken, Influence has now settled into it's new limits in the GCRs. It has not yet been used in it's final limitations to it's fullest advantage.

The post I was agreeing with was this one:

Improving Wordiness wrote:I do not understand why the only thing implemented out of the huge amount of discussions / suggestions / opinions....the only thing that has been implemented with the least amount of discussion was influence in the feeders...
REALLY? How did that address R/D?

The question is yet to be answered.

Nephmir wrote:The post I was agreeing with was this one:

Improving Wordiness wrote:I do not understand why the only thing implemented out of the huge amount of discussions / suggestions / opinions....the only thing that has been implemented with the least amount of discussion was influence in the feeders...
REALLY? How did that address R/D?

The question is yet to be answered.

Sedge answered it.

Sedgistan wrote:The feeders/sinkers are involved in R/D - but yes, that change wasn't directly aimed at the various issues that raiding/defending have. It's really up to the admins as to when various changes are implemented - I'd guess this came first as it was a relatively simple one to code, and didn't have so many details that needed finalising. Other projects, such as regional officers, are much more complex both in terms of coding and the details of how they work.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Nephmir wrote:The post I was agreeing with was this one:

The question is yet to be answered.

Sedge answered it.

Sedgistan wrote:The feeders/sinkers are involved in R/D - but yes, that change wasn't directly aimed at the various issues that raiding/defending have. It's really up to the admins as to when various changes are implemented - I'd guess this came first as it was a relatively simple one to code, and didn't have so many details that needed finalising. Other projects, such as regional officers, are much more complex both in terms of coding and the details of how they work.

Indeed. The changes made in the now almost a year and a half since the beginning in the Summit were supposedly to revitalize gameplay. It seems clear to me at least that if that was the goal of the Summit, then the Summit was an utter failure. Changes unrelated to gameplay have been made in the meantime, while the invader/defender dynamic remains stagnant. This suggests to me that either the Summit's goal was never to revitalize gameplay in the first place or that the Powers That Be decided for whatever reasons, perhaps technical, perhaps philosophical, that they would not seek that goal.

Blackbird wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Sedge answered it.

Indeed. The changes made in the now almost a year and a half since the beginning in the Summit were supposedly to revitalize gameplay. It seems clear to me at least that if that was the goal of the Summit, then the Summit was an utter failure. Changes unrelated to gameplay have been made in the meantime, while the invader/defender dynamic remains stagnant. This suggests to me that either the Summit's goal was never to revitalize gameplay in the first place or that the Powers That Be decided for whatever reasons, perhaps technical, perhaps philosophical, that they would not seek that goal.

Alternatively this is a lot of stuff to get done and it isn't easy to determine how to do it especially when there are other issues to be addressed as there always are.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Blackbird wrote:
Indeed. The changes made in the now almost a year and a half since the beginning in the Summit were supposedly to revitalize gameplay. It seems clear to me at least that if that was the goal of the Summit, then the Summit was an utter failure. Changes unrelated to gameplay have been made in the meantime, while the invader/defender dynamic remains stagnant. This suggests to me that either the Summit's goal was never to revitalize gameplay in the first place or that the Powers That Be decided for whatever reasons, perhaps technical, perhaps philosophical, that they would not seek that goal.

Alternatively this is a lot of stuff to get done and it isn't easy to determine how to do it especially when there are other issues to be addressed as there always are.

Perhaps so. As I said in the lines you quoted, perhaps technical reasons are why these changes have not been made. But as is nearly always the case in NationStates, the users remain in the dark. Sedgistan's answer about why he "guesses" one change is taking longer than another is unhelpful. Someone out there "knows," and they don't tell us. As is tradition.

I agree with Blackbird. Sure I imagine some of the changes will be difficult and require work to build. Keeping us in the dark over it is certainly not helping.
The telegram system was a big build but players were given updates now and then. As things stand we do not even know if more discussion is needed. Most of us are giving up on there being any change at all.
If nothing is going to change please at least post that. It is nonsense that there has been no update on this.

Improving Wordiness wrote:I agree with Blackbird. Sure I imagine some of the changes will be difficult and require work to build. Keeping us in the dark over it is certainly not helping.
The telegram system was a big build but players were given updates now and then. As things stand we do not even know if more discussion is needed. Most of us are giving up on there being any change at all.
If nothing is going to change please at least post that. It is nonsense that there has been no update on this.

The telegram system was "being worked on" for years before we got any further details. I'm not really that worried.

Yes it was....and we were told periodically that the TG System was being worked on. I am asking for a simple reply to that effect regarding the game changes listed. I do not believe that is asking too much.

More discussion needed?
It is still being decided how best to implement?
Gone into the too hard basket?

As has been said previously, these changes are still on the to-do list, with the exception of Reformation, which is on hold. Coding work has started on some (I understand that is displaying update times, and regional officers), others not yet. Discussion on all the changes is still welcome and encouraged, and can still impact on how they are implemented.

As Mall has said, changes take time to implement. Admins have limited time, and also have other NS matters they need to deal with at the same time.

Sedgistan wrote:As has been said previously, these changes are still on the to-do list, with the exception of Reformation, which is on hold. Coding work has started on some (I understand that is displaying update times, and regional officers), others not yet. Discussion on all the changes is still welcome and encouraged, and can still impact on how they are implemented.

As Mall has said, changes take time to implement. Admins have limited time, and also have other NS matters they need to deal with at the same time.

Do you, or anyone other Admin believe that 1) changes so far implemented, and 2) changes so far proposed will meet the Summit's goal of revitalizing gameplay? If so, how? If not, why do you think that is? And what decision-making process happened that caused the powers that be to abandon that goal?

Yes, and read the threads - it's been set out before.

Sedgistan wrote:As has been said previously, these changes are still on the to-do list, with the exception of Reformation, which is on hold. Coding work has started on some (I understand that is displaying update times, and regional officers), others not yet. Discussion on all the changes is still welcome and encouraged, and can still impact on how they are implemented.

As Mall has said, changes take time to implement. Admins have limited time, and also have other NS matters they need to deal with at the same time.

Thanks for the response Sedge....I fully expect it to take some time and I appreciate the work being put into it. I also appreciate that it is done while keeping NS running and fixes on demand. I really just wanted to know that the whole thing was not on pause due to the slowing of player input. I might shut up about it now for a few months

Wordy posting with my favourite puppet

Will the Delegate Elect mean an end to tag raiding??

That question is best asked in the Delegate Elect thread: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258992

when are these changes planned to be added?

That question has been asked, and answered repeatedly. Try reading back through this thread.

Not trying to be snarky here - really, I'm not - but have you considered updating the OP so as to reduce repeat questions about progress?

Over the past ... almost two years, I have repeatedly asked the admins / mods to provide updates on whether or not they believed the proposed changes and those that have been enacted have met the goals stated at the outset of the Summit.

To remind folks what that was: Terms of Reference:

Terms of Reference

For the purpose of clarity, [violet] has defined some basic parameters regarding an overall aproach to the game. These Terms of Reference will form the basis of summit discussions.

1. An "R/D" game, whereby groups of invaders move into a foreign region and attempt to capture the Delegacy, is an important part of NationStates.
2. This game generally consists of three types of player: invaders, who attempt to capture regions; natives, who occupy regions under attack; and defenders, who attempt to repel invaders from regions and return them to native control.
3. While invasions can be upsetting to natives, the conflict and excitement they provide contributes to a dynamic gameworld, and this seems to attract new players to NS and keep players coming back.
4. The pre-Influence rule system, whereby moderators were required to judge the "nativity" of various nations, while popular with many, could not be sustained, and will not return.
5. The current R/D game seems to have become less about political skill and more about "clock skill," whereby the success of an invasion largely depends on how accurately an invader group can predict the update time of a target region, and move in just beforehand, giving defenders and natives no time to react. This in particular has led to increased "tag raiding," where invaders attempt to capture as many regions as possible in a single update, but not necessarily hold any of them.
6. The R/D game should provide opportunities for invaders, defenders, and natives to all participate in a fun and rewarding way.

So let me ask again: has there been any evaluation by the moderators or administrators as to whether or not the proposed changes and those that have been implemented met the Terms of Reference [violet] posted. If so, how? If not, why not? If the changes accomplish some other goals not stated in the Terms of Reference how did the Terms of Reference change? When did they change? What were the discussions surrounding the change?

^That question doesn't make sense. They obviously believe the changes will have those effects* but how are they going to evaluate that if they haven't implemented them yet.**

*Or at least they'll say that even if they don't believe it because there's no chance they're going to open up the process again for more discussion because it's just endless chatter that goes nowhere.

*That's a different complaint entirely.

Gest wrote:^That question doesn't make sense. They obviously believe the changes will have those effects* but how are they going to evaluate that if they haven't implemented them yet.**

Well, some of them have been implemented.

*Or at least they'll say that even if they don't believe it because there's no chance they're going to open up the process again for more discussion because it's just endless chatter that goes nowhere.

*That's a different complaint entirely.

I presume good faith.

Blackbird wrote:

Gest wrote:^That question doesn't make sense. They obviously believe the changes will have those effects* but how are they going to evaluate that if they haven't implemented them yet.**

Well, some of them have been implemented.

Only 1, the feeder influence thing, so far.

I presume good faith.

The odds of them saying that the changes have failed before they're implemented are zero. It's clear from the inaction following the roleplayers complaints, that these are the changes they're sticking to. Until that indeterminate point in the future where all the changes are applied, any other proposed changes have slim probabilities of being implemented.

Blackbird wrote: I have repeatedly asked the admins / mods to provide updates on whether or not they believed the proposed changes and those that have been enacted have met the goals stated at the outset of the Summit.

There's no question that any changes will be subject to the Terms of Reference. None. They are the very framework underlying all the code decisions. Nothing has changed, nor is it likely to.

The only place we've potentially failed is that there haven't been many updates. That is for an incredibly simple reason: [violet] hasn't completed any of the proposed changes to her satisfaction, due primarily to other time constraints. Those constraints include both NationStates and RL concerns; i.e. the Demonym code was added because it was fairly simple and didn't impose any sort of game balance requirements. That doesn't mean that all other R/D code attempts were discarded, it just means that other things took priority.

The mods have nothing to do with the coding process. It's an admin thing, and all I can report as a mod is that I'm not getting a lot of new information about upcoming updates. As for our 4 admins - Salusa and Pythagasaurus have both been infected with a rabid case of Real Life, and can't be active here often. Ballotonia hasn't expressed a great deal of interest in this area and/or doesn't want to taint the process with his former Defender status. That leaves [violet], who is self-evidently BUSY.

So, you haven't missed anything, because the underlying rules haven't secretly been changed. I'd like to see some of these changes myself, but they'll happen if/when they happen. Not a moment sooner.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Blackbird wrote: I have repeatedly asked the admins / mods to provide updates on whether or not they believed the proposed changes and those that have been enacted have met the goals stated at the outset of the Summit.

There's no question that any changes will be subject to the Terms of Reference. None. They are the very framework underlying all the code decisions. Nothing has changed, nor is it likely to.

The only place we've potentially failed is that there haven't been many updates. That is for an incredibly simple reason: [violet] hasn't completed any of the proposed changes to her satisfaction, due primarily to other time constraints. Those constraints include both NationStates and RL concerns; i.e. the Demonym code was added because it was fairly simple and didn't impose any sort of game balance requirements. That doesn't mean that all other R/D code attempts were discarded, it just means that other things took priority.

The mods have nothing to do with the coding process. It's an admin thing, and all I can report as a mod is that I'm not getting a lot of new information about upcoming updates. As for our 4 admins - Salusa and Pythagasaurus have both been infected with a rabid case of Real Life, and can't be active here often. Ballotonia hasn't expressed a great deal of interest in this area and/or doesn't want to taint the process with his former Defender status. That leaves [violet], who is self-evidently BUSY.

So, you haven't missed anything, because the underlying rules haven't secretly been changed. I'd like to see some of these changes myself, but they'll happen if/when they happen. Not a moment sooner.

I appreciate the update. In my humble opinion, the more information and updates we get, even if it's "there's no new information," the better.

I,am really looking forward to the attack and defend idea it sounds great